2016-10-25 Planning Comm MinutesOctober 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
October 25, 2016
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
October 25, 2016 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
Christine Costello. Others present: Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP; Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek; City Administrator Mark McNeill;
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of September 28, 2016 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Presentations
A) DODD ROAD TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY – STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES
Ms. Fay Simer, AICPA from Stantec Consulting Services presented the findings of the Dodd
Road Trail Feasibility Study, which had been requested by the City of Mendota Heights. The
work was funded by a statewide health improvement program grant that the City received from
Dakota County. Through that grant funding, City staff did some community outreach around the
conversation of a trail along the Dodd Road Corridor. Stantec was retained to research the
technical feasibility of a trail. Ms. Simer wanted it to be known that this is just the first step in
this process and this is not a proposal for a trail alignment. The purpose of this study is to help
the City understand the level of effort it would take to construct a trail and will enable the City to
apply for future grant funding by having some preliminary work done and some cost estimates.
Ms. Simer shared an image of the proposed alignment of the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway
Master Plan, which showed Dodd Road as a potential alignment for that greenway. This image
also showed the Metropolitan Councils plan for a regional bicycle transportation network, a Tier
1 alignment – their highest priority connection.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2
The City’s Parks and Open Space Plans in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies
improvements for a trail between Trunk Highway 110 and Marie Avenue. Those improvements
are being funded as part of MnDOT’s 2018 resurfacing of Dodd Road. MnDOT has also been
doing some outreach in Mendota Heights in advance of the 2018-resurfacing project of Dodd
Road to understand biking and pedestrian needs along the corridor. Currently, MnDOT does not
have any plans or funding to change the road alignment or add a trail as part of the resurfacing
project. However, there may be some opportunities to do things along the road, as it exists today
to make it safer for bikers and walkers.
Comments and Feedback
Received by MnDOT during their outreach process in Mendota Heights:
Dodd Road needs a sidewalk
40 mph is too fast
Dodd Road is on the regional bicycle transportation network and needs some sort of
accommodations
Received by the City of Mendota Heights at their outreach during the Mendota Heights 5K and
Park Celebration:
Overwhelming positive comments about establishing a trail along Dodd Road
Desire for a safer corridor for biking and walking
Received from seniors living in the Parkview Plaza and Village Commons developments:
They would not use the trail for transportation purposes
There was some interest in a recreational facility
Ms. Simer then shared an image of what a trail alignment would need along Dodd Road:
Five feet of separation between the road and the trail
Eight-foot wide trail
Two-foot clear zone
Five-foot easement for public right-of-way
Discussions were had with Xcel Energy regarding burying the utilities and discovered that the
cost of burying utilities would be on the entity that requested it and could add an additional
$1.5M to $2M to the cost of the project. Utility boxes will still need to have space in the public
right-of-way.
Another thing to keep in mind would be the need to add storm sewer and gutter to replace any
ditches that were filled in to accommodate the addition of a trail. These would be necessary to
handle the stormwater that the ditches facilitate currently.
Guiding Principles for Analysis
Minimize crossing to maintain a continuous trail segment along one side of Dodd Road
for as long as possible
Utilize available public right-of-way as much as possible
Minimize relocation of utilities
Minimize disruption to slopes and trees
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3
Stantec’s recommended trail alignment, based on the guiding principles listed above, has been
broken down into nine segments. Note: this recommendation is based on what is constructible,
not necessarily based on conversations with property owners.
Segment Descriptions / Major Activities Required
Segment 1 – Delaware Ave. to Chippewa Ave.
Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
Remove and replace existing stone retaining wall
Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs
Segment 2 – Chippewa Ave. to Emerson Ave.
Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
Clear 35-40 trees and shrubs
Segment 3 – Emerson Ave. to Wentworth Ave.
Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs
Segment 4 – Wentworth Ave. to Marie Ave.
Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
Clear 55-60 trees and shrubs
Segment 5 – Marie Ave. to Maple St.
Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail extension planned as part of 2018 Dodd Road
resurfacing project.
Segment 6 – Maple St. to Hwy 110
Not analyzed as part of this study. Trail exists along east side of Dodd Road.
Segment 7A – Apache St. to Decorah Ln. (off-road on public right-of-way)
• Clear 30’ wide corridor through existing woods; approximately 30 trees and brush
Segment 7B – Hokah Ave. to Decorah Ln. (along Dodd Road)
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 15-20 trees and shrubs
Segment 8 – Decorah Ln. to Lake Dr.
• Fill existing ditch sections and add storm sewer between road and trail
• Add retaining walls to keep grading limits within the 20’ trail corridor
• Clear 30-35 trees and shrubs
Segment 9 – Lake Dr. to Mendota Heights Road
Extend grading limits in public right-of-way to 30-45’ to eliminate retaining walls
Clear 10-15 trees and brush
For the purpose of helping the City think through what it would take to obtain this 20 -foot
alignment along the West side of Dodd Road, Stantec did a preliminary assessment of the
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4
different segments and found that there are approximately 71 parcels along Dodd Road where the
City would have to acquire right-of-way to achieve that 20-foot trail corridor next to Dodd Road.
Preliminary Cost Estimates
The preliminary cost estimates do not include right of way acquisition or temporary construction
easement costs
Segment 1 – Delaware Ave to Chippewa Ave - $227,400
Segment 2 – Chippewa Ave to Emerson Ave - $699,450
Segment 3 – Emerson Ave to Wentworth Ave - $628,575
Segment 4 – Wentworth Ave to Marie Ave - $832,875
Segment 5 – Marie Ave to Maple St - $0 since a trail construction is already planned
Segment 6 & 7 – Maple St to Hokah Ave - $0 as existing trail facilities to remain
Segment 7A – Apache St to Decorah Lane - $176,625
Segment 7B – Hokah Ave to Decorah Lane - $230,025
Segment 8 – Decorah Lane to Lake Drive - $614,475
Segment 9 – Lake Drive to Mendota Heights Road - $230,625
Total Estimate - $3,640,050
Recommended Next Steps
Continue discussion in the community to generate and assess buy-in and support for the
trail corridor
Pursue trail construction in segments, spreading the costs out over time. Begin
construction along southern trail segments where right-of-way is publicly owned
Initiate individual meetings with property owners to assess their interest in selling
property or easements
Continue conversation with Xcel Energy and other utility companies regarding relocation
needs of private utilities
Look for opportunities through the development review process to acquire trail easements
as properties change ownership
Continue to work with MnDOT to install crossing and safety improvements during the
2018 resurfacing project
Long term, the City should look at both segments 7A and 7B to maximize the trail’s
connectivity with existing trail and park systems
Commissioner Hennes asked, with 75,000 square feet and 71 different parcels, what the ballpark
estimate of what the cost would be. Ms. Simer replied that Stantec does not estimate costs as part
of their work. They are planners and engineers and they do not want to be the ones assessing
what the market value of those properties would be.
Commissioner Hennes then asked City staff if they had any idea. Public Works Director Ryan
Ruzek replied that the City would probably pay somewhere between $5 and $10 a square foot.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5
Chair Field noted that it might be worth adding the existing trail section from Marie Avenue
south, just so all of the slides can be seen together in the report.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this study agnostic to any plans from the County about the
greenway; instead of doing construction along segments Dodd Road, would it make sense to use
whatever the County is willing to pay for. Ms. Simer replied that it would certainly make sense
to use the County right-of-way where it is available – there is County right-of-way available
along the southern portion of Dodd Road. The City now has some numbers to work with in terms
of what the construction costs are in that area.
Commissioner Magnuson noted, as a follow-up, that she knows for a fact that it is a County
priority at the current time to connect downtown St. Paul into the entire County network. This
seems to be creating a completely separate path that does not seem to fit with the County’s plan.
Chair Field stated that he was unsure if that was the nature of the project that Stantec was
charged with. It would be unfair to ask Stantec to comment on that since it was not part of the
project they were tasked with.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Stantec was hired to study a trail corridor
along Dodd Road. The County typically is after greenway trails, which are wider and more open
through nature areas. This trail section would actually be more for local users to get t o some of
those greenway trails.
Commissioner Hennes asked what would typically be the funding mechanism for this type of
project. Mr. Ruzek replied that within County right-of-ways, the County would typically pay for
55% of the trail costs. Within the state right-of-way, the City could use municipal state aid funds,
apply for grants, or use general tax levy funds. None of these trail segments are allocated to
move forward at this time; this is just the study process. The City recently applied for a grant and
would most likely not be receiving one for the next trail section to the north. The trail section
between Maple and Marie, the City is proposing to use municipal state aid funds.
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2016-39
KATHLEEN CASPER, 548 BUTLER AVENUE WEST
VARIANCE REQUEST
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this application is for a variance to build a
new slightly larger garage in roughly the same location of an existing garage. Planner Carlson
shared an aerial image of the property with the existing garage and then another with the new
garage penciled in. He noted that the existing one-car garage does not meet required setbacks and
the replacement with a new two-car garage in the same location would require variances, as it
would also not meet the required setbacks. He stated that it would be possible to place a 22 x 24
garage that would meet the setback requirements; however, it would be pushed all of the way
next to the house. This is listed as one of the practical difficulties in the report.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6
Planner Carlson then listed the criteria that must be met to issue a variance and shared how this
request met that criteria.
Staff recommended approval of this variance request.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the property owner gave any conside ration to building an
attached garage, thus having it meet the setback requirements. Planner Carlson replied that he is
unaware of any consideration of this kind. The plan is to place the new garage in roughly the
same location as the existing garage.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for elaboration of the practical difficulty of relocating the garage
because of the slopes. Planner Carlson replied that there is a significant drop in slope across the
site and pointed that out in the image he shared earlier.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Kathleen Casper, 548 Butler Avenue West, addressed Commissioner Hennes question by
stating that she did not consider building an attached garage. However, it would be difficult
because of the way the house is setup; it would be attached to her dining room and kitchen, and it
would block the view from the windows along that area.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if Ms. Casper had considered the placement of the garage where
it would fit in the setback area. Ms. Casper replied that she did not as it would be so close to the
house and would have the same drawbacks as an attached garage would have.
Chair Hennes asked how far of a drop is there from the house to the existing garage. Ms. Casper
replied that it is approximately 1.5 to 2 feet and is noticeable.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-39, VARIANCE REQUEST
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The variance requests meet the tests in the code for practical difficulties.
2. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7
1. The applicant must submit elevations depicting the height of the proposed structure,
exterior building materials, and garage door heights to the City for review prior to
issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to construction.
3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in
compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
4. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with the appl icable
City Code performance standards noted in Section 12-1I.
Chair Field noted that typically the Findings of Fact would amplify the fact that the lot is rather
obtuse in its shape and secondly, would note the elevation change from the house to the garage.
He believes it would be better in the record to have that.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION, THAT
THE ANALYSIS INDICATING THE IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT, AND THE GRADE
CHANGE FROM THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE BE INCLUDED IN THE FINDINGS OF
FACT.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON SECONDED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2016-40
IDEAL ENERGIES, LLC, 1450 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this application is for a conditional use
permit to construct a solar energy system in the side and rear yard of the Minnesota Knits
facility. The applicant wishes to install portable solar panels to provide electricity; a 60 kilowatt
array with a number of panels that would be placed on both the side and rear yards of the site.
Planner Carlson shared an image of the subject property indicating where it is located in relation
to surrounding streets and properties. The image also indicated the proposed location of the solar
panels.
The proposed location of the solar panels would meet the setbacks and the provisions in the code
in terms of area. There is an apparent contradiction in the code that refers in one section to solar
energy systems only in the rear yard and the other section of the code it sites the area that a solar
energy may occupy in both the side and rear yards. Planner Carlson stated that, in his experience
and his approach, whenever there appears to be a contradiction in the code, it is interpreted in
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8
favor of the applicant unless there is some great harm that would come because of it. In this
situation, between a couple of industrial buildings and the side yard and rear yard setbacks
significantly from the front yard, where it is viewed from the public right-of-way, his
interpretation is that in meeting the area requirements by putting it in both the side and rear yards
is a reasonable request.
Planner Carlson noted that the conditions listed, that were not entirely clear from the application,
is whether there would be screening and fencing around the array. In the large solar arrays that
he has worked with there has been continuous fencing just for security because they are, in
essence, a small power plant. Screening for both security and aesthetics would be appropriate in
this regard.
Commissioner Noonan asked, in regards to fencing, if Planner Carlson was suggesting that
fencing be erected along the rear lot line and the side lot line. Planner Carlson replied that he
believes it should be installed for security unless the applicant has information that indicates it is
not necessary.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there is any glare with these types of solar panels. Planner
Carlson replied that Stantec has worked with one of the larger solar farms developers and there
have been glare studies done. These panels are built to absorb the sunlight, not to reflect it. It
does reflect light but it is not like a polished plate of glass, it is very subdued reflection.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that her concern was for the traffic being on three sides of this
property; thus her question regarding the potential for glare.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rich Ragatz of Ideal Energies, 1450 Mendota Heights Road, came forward to be available
for questions. In response to Commissioner Magnuson’s question, he noted that all of the panels
face directly south and would not be facing towards the road nor would they affect traffic.
Commissioner Noonan asked why a ground array instead of a roof-mounted array. Mr. Ragatz
replied that they have done a number of rooftop installations and that is typically what they like
to do. However, this building has a metal roof with a rubber membrane; it would be too
challenging to install a rooftop array without puncturing the membrane.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were any plans for a fence. Mr. Ragatz replied that they
could fence it but is unsure if it is needed. Minnesota Knitting Mills would like for them to fence
it so they are open to doing that. They would have to figure out how to accommodate egress
from the fire door but they could work with that.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-40 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposal meets the spirit and intent of the code dealing with solar energy systems.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant constructs a fence or other form of visual screening along the south
side of the property, to be approved by the City Engineer.
2. That trees are removed properly in accordance to City standards, as discussed in section
3-4-2 of the City code.
3. That the applicant provides proper utility connection and safety documentation.
4. That the applicant applies for all additional required permits including a building permit.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016
meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2016-41
JERRY TROOIEN, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this application was for a Critical Area
Permit and Conditional Use Permit within the Mississippi River Critical Area to trim some trees
and underbrush on the property.
Planner Carlson shared an image of the property outlining the location of the house and
surrounding streets. This lot, which is approximately five acres, was subdivided a couple of year
ago to create a second home lot in the front of it of approximately 1.6 acres, leaving 3.4 acres
with the existing house and garage. The applicant wishes to remove nine trees and associated
buckthorn underbrush in a wooded, brushy area on the newly created parcel. Photos and
descriptions of the trees were included in the Commissioner Packet.
When Planner Carlson visited the site he noted an area of disturbed ground indicating some
grading activity already and there did not appear to be any erosion control measures, nor could
he find any kind of permit being pulled. However, it may fall below the threshold of the area or
the amount of earth to be moved that would trigger a permit. Nonetheless it is adjacent to the
area that is wooded and some trees that the applicant wishes to remove. Therefore, it is
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10
recommended that condition three be incorporated into the work that is being done here and that
the work on these trees, if approved, is done professionally and carefully.
Commissioner Noonan asked for additional information on the reasoning for requiring that a
qualified professional do the removal – it seems contrary to the notion of a weekend handyman
going in and doing the work, especially when dealing with an invasive species. Planner Carlson
replied that there is some buckthorn and other brush that would be a weekend handyman type
removal; however, these are also nine large trees that is really beyond a handyman and would
require a tree service to come in and remove. Commissioner Noonan asked if this could not be a
decision made by the property owner, based upon his expertise and comfort in terms of removing
those trees. Planner Carlson replied that it could be and that would be a judgment call that the
Commission and the Council could make. He did note that this is in the critical area with
heightened scrutiny.
Commissioner Petschel asked why trees are being cleared prior to the plan of a home
construction. Planner Carlson replied that would be a question for the property owner or his
representative.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, in Planner Carlson’s view, if these trees were to come down if
there would be sufficient cover remaining on the property, it would not open the space up, so that
the houses become visible. Planner Carlson replied that, in his opinion, this would not
significantly alter the view and it would be reasonably protected.
Commissioner Petschel wished to know if the location of a future home site is contingent upon
these trees being removed. Planner Carlson replied that this was his understanding as the trees
are not located on the proposed home pad.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Adam Vetvick of Vetvick Law, St. Paul, MN, representing the property owner, came
forward and explained that Mr. Trooien could not be present as he is traveling out of state. In
response to Commissioner Magnuson’s question, Mr. Vetvick replied that there is enough tree
cover that, if these trees were removed, would block any kind of view onto the lot or out of the
lot.
In response to Commissioner Petschel question, Mr. Vetvick replied that typically this would all
be done in one fell swoop. However, just with certain goings on within Mr. Trooien’s personal
life and other things happening it just hasn’t been possible to have it all done at the same time.
There is some consideration being made as far as what is actually going to be built, but those are
discussions for another day. They are seeking to clean up the lo t a little bit, get some of the junk
trees out of the way, and some of the underbrush off there as well.
Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, in regards to the clearing done on the property last year,
asked if a critical area permit had been applied for at that time. Chair Field indicated that it was
noted in the staff report that it is unknown if a permit had been applied for. Mr. Carlson
continued by asking what the repercussions are for doing activities without the permit. Chair
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11
Field replied that they might have a discussion on that later. Right now they are dealing with the
staff report and public testimony.
Mr. Carlson commented that he and his neighbors noticed those activities last summer and fall
occurring between 8:00 p.m. and midnight to the point where it was causing some of the
neighbors to have trouble sleeping. When they went over to ask that the activities be halted they
were treated very rudely. In regards to the condition for approval that the removals are done
professionally and carefully, he questioned if the previous activities were done in the same
manner.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the area had been lit during the nighttime activities. Mr.
Carlson replied that there was heavy machinery and bulldozers in there for several nights
removing trees and moving earth with lots of lights and noise from the machinery.
Mr. Ken Herrmann, 995 Caren Court, asked if the property owner would be required to request
another permit and subsequent hearing if he wished to remove any additional vegetation in the
future. Planner Carlson replied that the removal of trees in the critical area would require a
critical area permit. When questioned, Planner Carlson indicated that the removal of a tree
downed by a storm or disease could be outside the authority of a permit and it would not be
necessary; but more investigation would need to be done before he could give a definite answer.
Mr. Herrmann then asked if, in the future, if there is no notice given that he plans on removing
more vegetation and the neighbors notice activity, to whom should they come to have an
investigation. Chair Field replied that they should contact City Hall and report it immediately.
Mr. Hermann asked what the timeline is for doing this kind of work – what time in the evening
should the stop. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the rule of thumb is to go by
what the pollution control agency or state statute requires. Technically it is set at 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. The City likes to restrict contractors to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; however, they are
allowed to make noise until 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Hermann asked how difficult would it be to change the zoning from R-1 Residential to
Commercial. Planner Carlson replied that it would be a two-step process; a City Land Use Plan
and the Comprehensive Plan that designates it as low density residential, following that would be
zoning. Taking a residential property in the middle of other residential properties and making it
commercial would be highly unusual and not likely to occur.
Mr. Carlson, representative of the property owner, noted that rezoning is not part of this
application and there are no plans to do that. As far as when work should cease, if it should
become part of the conditional use then so be it.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 12
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED and added that condition one be amended to include
the phrase ‘and that no work is to be done outside of the timeframes that are permitted within
City Code.’ COMMISSIONER NOONAN SECONDED THE MOTION and made a friendly
amendment that the work timeframe be narrowed to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which Commissioner
Magnuson accepted, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41,
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical
Area Overlay District.
2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical
Area, if done carefully and professionally.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Removal of trees and underbrush is performed by a qualified professional and that no
work would be permitted before 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m.
2. Removal of trees and underbrush is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on
drawings and photos accompanying the application
3. Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place in the area noted as well as the
area of open soil adjacent to it to the south until ground cover can be established
Commissioner Roston expressed his disagreement with the altering of the allowable timeframe,
as there is already a limit set in the Code; however, he would not argue the point.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there were conflicting requirements based on noise and
construction. The response what that the ordinance that deals with noise has nothing to do with
construction.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016
meeting.
Commissioner Magnuson asked about consequences imposed in the past when cutting in the
critical area were done prior to the granting of a permit. Commissioner Roston replied that he
believes that this body – the Planning Commission – does not have the authority to do anything;
the City of Mendota Heights does. The appropriate person to refer this question to is probably
the City Attorney.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 13
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY
INVESTIGATE THE MATTER OF THE CUTTING OF TREES, BRUSH, OR OTHER
VEGETATION, AND THE MOVEMENT OF EARTH LOCATED ON A PARTICULAR SITE
AT MR. TROOIEN’S PROPERTY; AS WELL AS INVESTIGATE THE TIMING AND THE
EQUIPMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED AND THE EXTENT OF WORK THAT
WAS PREFORMED AND WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SAID WORK, AND IF NOT WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES MAY BE.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Absent: 1
D) PLANNING CASE #2016-42
TIMOTHY MCGOUGH, 1787 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that this request was for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning. The initial application was by Mr. Timothy McGough and it has
since been revised to Lexington Properties, LLC. The property involved is a single-family lot on
Lexington Avenue and is bordered by other single-family homes and by the townhomes to the
north.
Mr. Carlson shared an image of the site on the 2030 Land Use Plan and another image of the site
on the Zoning Map. The site is guided as low density residential, as are all of the properties
surrounding it, and is zoned R-1 Residential. The request is to rezone the property from R-1
Residential to R-2 Residential and to change the land use from low density to medium density.
There is not much precedent in the City for the R-2 and the medium density residential.
However, immediately to the north of this property are twin homes and immediately north of that
are tri-plexes located in the City of Lilydale or the City of Mendota.
If this property were surrounded by all single-family dwellings and uses, it could be argued that
rezoning to R-2 would not be permissible as no one likes ‘spot zoning’. However, with the twin
homes [located in Mendota Heights] and tri-plexes [not located in Mendota Heights] being
located immediately to the north this may not be a case of ‘spot zoning’.
Staff made no recommendations on this matter.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tim McGough, 1442 Knollwood Lane, commented that he is aware that the City reluctantly
considers rezoning but believes that have a medium density property in this location would make
for a clean transition from the relatively high density property to the immediate north and the low
density properties to the south and west. He continued his explanations for allowing this
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 14
rezoning by addressing the points listed under “Findings of Fact for Denial” in the staff report.
He also expounded on his willingness to do whatever is necessary – be it a Planned Unit
Development or an agreement between the owners of the twin home – to assure the City and the
community that there would be no additional units built on this property – only the twin-home he
is planning.
Commissioner Magnuson asked who actually owns the property. Mr. McGough replied that he
believes that two children of the former owner, who has passed away, own it. He does have a
signed purchase agreement contingent upon getting it rezoned to R-2.
Commissioner Roston asked for clarification that the lawyer Mr. McGough consulted was not
with the firm Commissioner Roston works at. Mr. McGough confirmed that it was not the same
firm.
Mr. Maris Kurmis, 2250 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka and listing agent for the property came
forward to give evidence for the zoning change as well as to represent the sellers. He echoed th e
arguments already made by Mr. McGough.
Mr. Tom Evans, who lives in Kingsley Estates located north of the subject property, stated that
he believes that a twin home owned by two different owners is actually a condominium. If it is a
condominium it removes a lot of the issues that some people have had; that being build a twin
home and make it owner occupied with renting out the other side, or build a twin home and have
an absentee owner making it an apartment.
Planner Carlson clarified that the zoning ordinance speaks to density and lot size but not to
ownership structure.
Mr. Bob Hughes, 1117 Orchard Place, owns the property located directly south of the subject
property, which is very similar in size and character. He believes that the subject property was
sold at a too high of a price and the only way to come out on top is to make it a rental property.
He believes that making this a rental property would negatively affect the value of his own.
Mr. McGough returned and noted that he chaired a buildings and ground committee for a 66-unit
condominium so he knows how they operate, what they require, the difference of opinion and
everything that goes into them. That is not what they are about here, they are not interested in
developing the property – they are interested in building a home for themselves and their best
friends. Their best friends are in the same situation as they are; they are looking to downsize and
be on one level. They have looked at every other property available in the City and they do not
work for a number of reasons. They want to live on the property and have no intention of
subdividing, renting out, or being a bad neighbor.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 15
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she is not in favor of rezoning this property. She then asked
if there were any other way that this project could go forward, which would eliminate some of
the concerns about not being able to control an R-2 property and limit then how this property
were used in certain way such that it would be limited to two units, owner occupied, etc. Planner
Carlson replied that he could not see a way. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is in essence a
zoning where you get to control the pieces of it; this property would not qualify for a PUD due to
its size. The City is limited to the uses, the lot sizes, and the densities that are in the d iscreet
zoning districts. It’s either R-1 and single-family or it’s R-2 and then other things would apply.
Commissioner Magnuson continued by explaining that the setting of precedence is of concern as
there are other similar properties located next to or near the subject property and the City would
be hard pressed to deny any similar rezoning requests. Planner Carlson stated that the City does
have discretion in where to draw the line at the land use level – they could redraw the current
line to include this one property and then stop there. As far as limiting it to just two units – he
does not see how.
Commissioner Roston also expressed his opposition to the rezoning but he also stated that he
would not have a problem with two units. He believes that with a creative lawyer that it could be
accomplished.
Commissioner Hennes stated that he would be comfortable with the rezoning as the applicant has
made a compelling case and that it is simply a matter of making the property an R -2 and see
where the chips fall.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING
CASE 2016-41, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The property is located on the edge of two areas with different density and character. The
subject property could logically follow the pattern to the north. To the west, south, and
east are low density single family neighborhoods; Abutting the property along its entire
northern edge is a medium density development more in keeping with a medium density
R-2 zoning designation than the single family R-1 designation it has now.
2. The property fronts directly on Lexington Avenue, a major street, and any additional
traffic from a medium density development on the property would not pass through other
quiet single-family neighborhood streets.
3. The property has sufficient area for four single-family lots, but it is not possible to
subdivide into conforming lots due to its dimensions and configuration, and its single
frontage on Lexington Avenue. Allowing a duplex, triplex or other medium density
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 16
structure would allow the owner a reasonable use of the land not otherwise possible given
the dimensions of the property.
The motion died for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The property abuts single-family uses on three of its four sides and there is currently a
clean straight line between the different densities. Changing this property to medium
density is not a clean dividing line.
2. Reguiding the property to Medium Density and rezoning to R -2 would entitle the owner
to the full density and uses allowed for R-2 zoning, perhaps up to four units, not just one
duplex structure.
3. Even though the property to the north is medium density the City need not expand that to
the subject property; the current dividing line is reasonable.
4. There are no other areas of the City guided for Medium Density as a stand -alone
designation and only one other lot in the entire City zoned R-2. Creating a new R-2
district would be an anomaly in the City’s land use and zoning scheme.
Additional discussions occurred on the reasons for denying the rezoning, the agreement that
allowing two dwellings on the property would be feasible if it could be done in a way that would
not set a precedence or create spot zoning, and the possibility of a creative solution.
Chair Field asked if an application is denied if there was a limitation on when it could be brought
back. The reply was that according to the ordinance it would be six months. Commissioner
Roston noted that he would add a friendly amendment that the six -month waiting period be
waived.
Chair Field asked Mr. McGough if he would like to lay this issue over and study the situation
with his attorney as opposed to going down the tortured path of having a denial its consequences.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the question before the Commission was the rezoning from an
R-1 to an R-2 and for the reasons that have been expressed he couldn’t support the rezoning or
the spot zoning for moving of the transition line. However, he believes there were challenges
thrown out to explore options within the context of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning,
which would allow a development to come forward. He would not necessarily support laying it
over; he would like to deal with the zoning issue. However, there is openness to consider
achieving what the applicant wants within the context of the zoning.
October 25, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 17
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF ASKING THE
APPLICANT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO LAY HIS APPLICATION OVER TO EXPLORE
OTHER OPTIONS
AYES: 5
NAYS: 1 (NOONAN)
ABSENT: 1
Mr. McGough returned and, after lengthy discussions on what exactly could be the outcome of
laying it over, replied that the Commission should go ahead with the decision at this time.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field called the standing motion of denial.
AYES: 3 (ROSTON, NOONAN, MAGNUSON)
NAYS: 3 (HENNES, PETSCHEL, FIELD)
ABSENT: 1
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2016
meeting without a recommendation from the Planning Commission
Verbal Review
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2016-35
Great Northern Builders, LLC, 780 South Plaza Drive
Conditional Use Permit
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:17 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1